Self Sustaining renewable energy source, is it even possible?

[Oldgamer]

With all the variants of fuel sources that have been designed and created, and now with electric chargeable cars, it made me wonder if it is even possible for scientists to come up with a self-sustaining renewable energy source. This would mean the energy source would have to feed upon itself in some way without needing to be fed. A type of energy that never goes out or dies.

A battery has to be charged, or fed electricity in some way to charge it. A car engine can't run without feeding on gasoline to start it and create energy needed to run it.

Anyway, I am no scientist but it seems like if we could create a containable, self sustaining type of renewable energy source on some basic atomic, molecular level we would never need to purchase things like electricity, or gasoline, etc.


Any potential physicists or biochemists on Anandtech that can give some input?

 

[Ruptga]

"What luck for rulers that men do not think"
Adolph Hitler

er... yeah.

 

[Markbnj]

My input is: no.

 

[rcpratt]

Oh. That's what we weren't thinking of. Duh.

 

[dighn]

you are talking perpetual motion, a concept different from renewable energy. renewable just means the process of energy extraction is maintainable (in a reasonable time frame). solar energy and its derivatives (wind, bio, hydro) are renewable but are driven by an external energy source (sun) rather than self sustaining.

 

[Oldgamer]

you are talking perpetual motion, a concept different from renewable energy. renewable just means the process of energy extraction is maintainable (in a reasonable time frame). solar energy and its derivatives (wind, bio, hydro) are renewable but are driven by an external energy source (sun) rather than self sustaining.

Haha, thanks for replying. Well I wouldn' t know how to articulate this idea very well, and that is simply due to my education and not understanding basic science lingo I guess. Dumb idea I guess.

 

[Nintendesert]

Yes, we just need to invent the perpetual motion machine.

 

[Ruptga]

On a less douchebaggy note, we are steadily making progress on nuclear fusion as a power source. That won't be renewable, but we literally have oceans of fuel for it.

 

[mmntech]

There have been some promising experiments with nuclear fusion recently. IIRC, scientist just created a reaction that output as much energy as it took to maintain it. Which is a huge deal. Renewables are just a stepping stone to the hydrogen economy.

 

[Imaginer]

Off the top of my mind would be nuclear fusion and fission. Breeder reactors would make energy perpetual and sustainable for centuries of generations, aka like the sun does.

Good luck convincing the public of this option though.

 

[Matthiasa]

You missed the renewable part of it.

If you are willing to wait ~forever you could just place some type of energy absorbing box somewhere and wait for another big bang to happen.

 

[Ruptga]

You missed the renewable part of it.

If you are willing to wait ~forever you could just place some type of energy absorbing box somewhere and wait for another big bang to happen.

Nothing is truly renewable until we find a way to break entropy.

 

[Kaido]

Any potential physicists or biochemists on Anandtech that can give some input?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8yW5cyXXRc

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If you mean something which just keeps making energy without being refueled, the answer is no. Laws of thermodynamics prevent perpetual motion. Also renewable energy sources by definition need to be renewed. In other words there is no free lunch, but it's certainly possible that relative low cost alternatives which are renewable can be had, and there's promising technology which would allow for electricity production for less than what it costs now. The problem with the latter is IP and corporations. People who come up with something revolutionary will patent it and corporations will buy those patents and bury any competition. Lawyers guns and money. Two of the three are still very much in vogue.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Nothing is truly renewable until we find a way to break entropy.

That ain't happening.

 

[Matthiasa]

Entropy already broke itself, as in existence exists.
There are still many things that are not known at this point.

 

[Printer Bandit]

 

[TridenT]

Entropy already broke itself, as in existence exists.
There are still many things that are not known at this point.

Quack.

 

[Ruptga]

Entropy already broke itself, as in existence exists.
There are still many things that are not known at this point.

For as long as there have been observers, entropy has been increasing. We don't know what future generations of scientists will discover, but for now we can say with some certainty that entropy is as unbreakable as the speed of light.

 

[Matthiasa]

I never said that wasn't what has been currently observed, but the universes formation or its continued existence do violate the first or second law respectively.
Now some theories have the universe coming from higher dimensions such as the collision of branes, prior universes, etc but then it just places the target on what was prior to its current form.

Quack.

Very eloquent explanation of how it wasn't.

 

[Ruptga]

I never said that wasn't what has been currently observed, but the universes formation or its continued existence do violate the first or second law respectively.
Now some theories have the universe coming from higher dimensions such as the collision of branes, prior universes, etc but then it just places the target on what was prior to its current form.


Very eloquent explanation of how it wasn't.

Ok, no. The universe's continued existence in no way violates the second law. You want proof, take a glance at the US Congress, the second law is very much still in effect.

 

[Matthiasa]

If it always has existed it violates the second law.
If it hasn't, it violates the first.

 

[AViking]

With all the variants of fuel sources that have been designed and created, and now with electric chargeable cars, it made me wonder if it is even possible for scientists to come up with a self-sustaining renewable energy source. This would mean the energy source would have to feed upon itself in some way without needing to be fed. A type of energy that never goes out or dies.

A battery has to be charged, or fed electricity in some way to charge it. A car engine can't run without feeding on gasoline to start it and create energy needed to run it.

Anyway, I am no scientist but it seems like if we could create a containable, self sustaining type of renewable energy source on some basic atomic, molecular level we would never need to purchase things like electricity, or gasoline, etc.


Any potential physicists or biochemists on Anandtech that can give some input?

If you're younger than 17 I would say this question is fair. The answer is no. If you're older than that though you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Oldgamer]

If you're younger than 17 I would say this question is fair. The answer is no. If you're older than that though you should be ashamed of yourself.

AViking, there is no shame in asking a question or questions on something I may be ignorant of. Ignorant does not equate to being dumb. It just means I don't know much about anything science related in this field. I am an old timer whose education probably didn't include what kids learn these days.

So no, I am not ashamed for asking questions and shooting out ideas and thoughts to others.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

If it always has existed it violates the second law.
If it hasn't, it violates the first.

No it doesn't. Thermodynamics is goverened by statistical laws. All the molecules air can rush into the corner all at once. That you don't observe it is because the lifespan of the universe isn't long enough for it to likely happen. There are pockets of order everywhere. Don't you think that if entropy was broken you would have learned that in school just as you would have Newtons laws of motion? What you can't do is make things magically move on their own. In theory you could grab all the molecules and move them but you would expend energy to do so and that would result in an increase in total entropy. You can't get more energy out of a system than exists. You can't change the direction of the flow of heart any more than you can walk negatively, and I don't mean in an opposite direction but making movement not have happened after you've gone from point a to b.